Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
Successful weight loss is a challenging journey, no doubt about it. In fact, it may be just as challenging as walking solo from New York to Los Angeles, and for many it may take even longer. Would you take either journey without having a clue how long it is going to take? Well, neither would I. So, let’s first analyze both walks with special attention on the journey to realistically lose the weight you seek.
The Long Walk …
- In perfect conditions – good weather, flat roads, comfortable shoes, and regular rests – you can easily walk for eight hours each day at a comfortable pace.
- According to Google Maps, the walking distance between New York and LA is around 2,800 miles.
- At three miles per hour, it will take you 933 hours of walking to cover this distance.
- With everything going absolutely right, you’ll get to LA in 116 days, or a few days short of four months. That is, if you don’t stop for a day.
Unlike this truly monumental, once-in-a-lifetime road trip, a rather ordinary weight loss journey from 175 to 125 lbs. is measured in fat loss per day rather than miles per hour. To begin, let’s switch over to the metric system first.
You’ll immediately feel better and lighter just by realizing that you are weighing half as much in kilos than in pounds. And losing 100 grams a day also feels like a much greater accomplishment than a mere three ounces. Also metrics will let you do the math without resorting to a calculator.
How long does ordinary weight loss to a normal weight really take?
- The “distance” between your current 80 kg (175 lbs.) and the target 57 kg (125 lbs.) from your youth is exactly 23 kg (50 lbs.).
- In the first two weeks of your reduced calorie diet, you’ll drop 15 lbs. (7 kg) of phantom weight (the subject of a prior post). That leaves you with 16 kg (35 lbs.) more to go…
- Let’s assume that you can stick with a 1,200-calorie diet for as long as it takes to lose 100 grams of fat per day. A total fast, on average, may yield 200 to 300 grams of daily weight loss with about half of it at the expense of body fat. So losing 100 grams daily while still on a modest diet is an excellent rate of fat loss.
- A simple division of 16 kg (1,600 g) by 100 grams results in 160 days.
As you can see, it takes slightly over five months of a rather restrictive dieting to lose 35 lbs. (16 kg) of fat for good. And that is, ideally, with no family to cook for, no parties to attend, a supportive spouse, decent digestive and endocrine health, good sleep, little stress, and an iron will to resist an occasional piece of dark chocolate or a glass of wine.
Let me repeat that: A healthy middle-aged person in a supportive environment may require at least 160 days for losing 35 lbs. of excess body fat on a strict 1,200 calorie diet.
That isn’t exactly what all of those famous diet books have been telling you all along, is it? What have they promised you? Two weeks? Four weeks? A few months? Yesterday? It’s total, complete bull my friends!
If, indeed, these authors were telling you the unvarnished truth the way I just laid it out, most people simply wouldn’t buy their books, take their classes, or eat their snacks and prepackaged meals. Just imagine a tagline on the cover of one of these diet books:
“Struggle through a 1,200 calorie diet for the next 160 days to rediscover the body of your youth!”
Would you? I doubt it. And if your environment isn’t supportive, or you aren’t exactly in perfect health, or you are well into menopause, or you lapse every so often into binge eating, or you can’t give up alcohol, or what have you, it may take even longer than 160 days, much, much longer…
Sorry for being a spoiler, but that’s, ladies and gentlemen, the hard truth of successful and permanent fat loss.
To fail – do as they say. To succeed – do it right!
So, let’s get brutally honest with ourselves and totally technical about the process. As I explained in the previous post, diet-related weight loss has two distinct stages: the loss of phantom weight first, and the actual loss of excess body fat second.
As you recall from that post, the loss of phantom weight lasts up to two weeks and is represented primarily by the reduction of undigested foods, fluids, and stools inside your gastrointestinal tract, but little or no actual body fat.
The resulting weight reduction is often quite profound – anywhere from 10 to 20 lbs., depending on your starting weight, diet, and colon health. This “magic,” however, is over as soon as your scale comes to a screeching halt, even though you are still consuming the exact same diet.
That is why the next stage – the permanent loss of body fat – is what you are re-e-e-a-l-ly after. Its duration depends on a multitude of factors, beginning with the amount of fat you need to lose and ending with your age, height, gender, ethnicity, occupation, rate of metabolism, personality type, the quality of sleep, physical activity, diet composition, climate, and some others.
Estimating the length of an effective weight loss diet isn’t rocket science, but rather elementary school arithmetic. It can be expressed in these three simple formulas:
Excess fat = Current weight — Desired weight — Phantom weight
Fat loss duration = Excess fat / Daily fat loss
Total diet duration = Fat loss duration + Two weeks
Let’s give definition and meaning to all of the above variables:
- Current weight. Purchase the best electronic self-adjustable scale that you can afford, set it to metric mode, and weight yourself first thing in the morning, with no clothes on and after urinating. I personally use the Omron HBF-514C scale because it has a resolution of 100 grams and is quite sturdy and professional looking. For consistency, always use the same scale.
- Desired weight is your target “normal” weight. If you weren’t overweight in your youth, the desired weight is usually your average weight between the ages of 18 and 25. If you were always overweight, the formula for determining your desired weight (in kilograms, not lbs.) is your height in centimeters minus 100 for men or 110 for women. This simplistic method does not account for body morphology and muscle strength, but it is close enough for these calculations. Keep in mind that in many instances your desired weight may be higher than your “normal” weight because a substantial weight loss in your later years may reveal the signs of premature aging, such as facial wrinkles, sunken eyes, shabby neck, or floppy love handles under the arms, so you may want to avoid turning one appearance-related concern into another. That’s why I used the word “normal” in quotes – what may be a norm at 20 may turn into a menace at 40.
- Phantom weight loss is determined during the first two weeks of your diet, as I already explained this phenomena earlier. As big as this figure may be, for all intents and purposes it is nearly meaningless to true weight (i.e., fat) loss, and incredibly self-deceptive to boot.
- Excess fat is the only realistic measure of your weight “problem.” That is what you want to lose, and losing it for good requires the most amount of time. Your excess fat is determined by deducting phantom weight losses and desired weight from your current weight.
- Fat loss duration is the number of days you must remain on a low (or very low) calorie diet until you attain your desired weight. That’s the number you are really after. If you come to this process with unrealistic expectations, you may quit your perfectly performing diet way before it has a chance to prove itself.
- Daily fat loss. To establish this number as accurately as possible, you’ll need to stay on a fat reduction diet (after completing your phantom weight loss, of course) for at least 15 to 20 days, or even longer. There are several reasons behind this requirement: (a) the low resolution of consumer weight scales; (b) day-to-day natural weight loss fluctuations; (c) the propensity of weight loss to slow down somewhat as your body adjusts to reduced calorie intake; and (d) inevitable lapses in your daily caloric intake. To properly estimate your daily fat loss, wait until your weight goes down at least 2 kg, and divide this number (i.e. 2 kg) by the number of days it took you to get there. If you do not observe any measurable weight reduction throughout this period, it means that your diet is too generous for your particular rate of metabolism, and you’ll need to reduce your caloric intake even more. Or you may need to increase your level of physical activity. Even better, do both (i.e., eat less and exercise more) until you observe sustainable weight loss. For as long as you consume less nutrients than your body expends for energy and structural metabolism, fat loss is just as assured as sunrise and sundown – no ifs, ends, or buts about it.
- Total diet duration. This number is self-explanatory. Just prepare yourself for the total diet duration being longer than your most conservative estimate because a real life throws its curve balls, diet or no diet. When it comes to safe and sustainable weight loss, being cautiously realistic always beats being hopelessly optimistic.
Can You Lose the Weight? Easy come isn’t always easy go, unless…
…unless you do it right. So let’s review a real-life example, using my own experience as a base. As you embark on your own weight loss journey, just replace my numbers with yours.
When my family immigrated into the United Sates at the end of 1978, I stood 5’7” and weighted 70 kg (154 lbs.) without an iota of visible flab on my taut body. Up until the very end of medical school, I was actively involved in boxing, bodybuilding, skiing, and hockey. Not surprisingly, throughout those years, I was wearing size 32 pants, 15.5” shirts, 38S jackets, and 9.5 shoes.
My weight and shape stayed the same until I quit smoking in 1984. Soon thereafter I developed constipation-dominant IBS (a pretty common side effect of smoking cessation) and started gaining weight. (Smoking cessation stimulates weight gain not because it may increase appetite in some people, but because it reduces the rate of energy metabolism through the improvements of the lung, heart, and liver functions, meaning these organs need to work less to accomplish the same output when no longer smoking.)
On the advice of my physician, I switched over to a high fiber, dairy-free diet, but it made matters worse. So I kept searching. In the summer of 1991, after reading “Fit for Life,” a vegetarian manifesto by Harvey and Marilyn Diamonds, longing to become as strong as an elephant (a vegetarian, of course) and as fit as Mr. Diamond, I embraced a vegan lifestyle. Guess what? By 1996, at age 42, I was still 5’7”, but now weighing 82 kg (181 lbs.) and wearing size 40 pants, 42S jackets, 17.5” shirts, and 10 EEE shoes. Yes, my feet got elephantine too.
From that point on, it took me four more years of trial and error with various diets to get down to my normal weight. If I had known then what I do know now, that journey would have been significantly safer for my overall health, and a lot shorter. I’ll address the safety aspects in future posts. Meanwhile, let’s concentrate on determining the total diet duration for someone in my predicament at that time, but based on my current knowledge:
To determine my phantom weight, I reduced my daily caloric intake to 1,400 calories. This number may or may not apply to you, and I am using it here for illustration only. I will address stage one and stage two diet composition and energy density in future posts.
At the end of the two week period, my weight dropped to 78 kg (172 lbs.). The loss wasn’t as dramatic because I wasn’t a prodigious eater to begin with. So I ended up with 4 kg (7 lbs) of phantom weight loss and was ready to calculate my excess fat:
82 kg (current weight) — 4 kg (phantom weight) — 70 kg (desired weight) = 8 kg (excess fat)
Not bad, actually. I only needed to lose eight more kilos of fat in order to get down to my lowest adult weight of 70 kg.
To determine the total diet duration, I continued with my 1,400 calorie protocol until I lost another 2 kg (4.4 lb). This stage took me 26 more days.
To determine my daily fat loss, I divided these 2 kg by 26 days (2,000 g / 26 = 77 g).
Now I know that for as long as I’ll be staying on a ~ 1400 calorie diet, I’ll be losing ~77 grams of fat each day, and this is going to take me ~103 days, or about three and a half months (~ symbol means approximately):
8,000 g (excess fat) / 77 g (daily fat loss) = 103 days (fat loss duration)
Please note that those 103 days already include the 26 days I spent on determining my daily fat loss number. So, in fact, I only needed to stick to my 1,400 calorie regimen for 77 more days. Not a problem – I can definitely do that, except I also knew that over the next three months I would be attending two birthdays, one wedding, and six business dinners. Since all of these events will blow my diet somewhat, I added three extra days for each of these nine events, or 28 total.
Thus, if everything went as planned, I’d be back to 70 kg in the next 105 days (77 + 28). Not bad, not bad at all, considering a fruitless struggle over the previous four years.
Even the right diets fail when smart people fail to do them right
So why did it take me almost four years to reach that goal back in 2000? Well, as I said before, I didn’t know anything about phantom weight loss, the slow rate of actual daily fat loss, or a number of other equally relevant issues. No wonder, then, that as soon as the dramatic – half a pound or more per day – weight loss was over, I was quitting without ever really starting.
Even more dispiriting and injurious was that with every failed attempt, I was gaining more and more fat because each unsuccessful dieting cycle reduced the rate of my energy and structural metabolism, which was the complete opposite of what I was trying to accomplish.
I am now a decade and a half wiser and more experienced. Depending on the time of year and the degree of my indiscretion with an occasional glass of sake or wine, my weight swings between 68 and 70 kg, less in the summer, more in the winter. This is normal and expected for anyone living a normal life.
These fluctuations don’t overly concern me because when the scale creeps past 70 kg, I know who to blame (myself, of course) and start adjusting my diet accordingly. And for as long as my weight stays in that narrow range – plus or minus 2 kg – I fit all my clothes and feel great about my appearance.
Ready to diet right? In the next post, “How to Prepare Yourself for Safe and Effective Weight Loss Diet,” I will explain how to drop your phantom weight along with a couple of sizes without encountering diet-crashing side effects such as hypoglycemia, constipation, dehydration, indigestion, hair loss, and many others.
Make sure that people with whom you share your meals review your plans too. This will ensure they do not sabotage your weight loss odyssey with their well-intended but often incorrect advice!
More Information on Weight Loss
The French Dukan Diet
Dieting with Coconut Oil
The Harcombe Diet Plan
Bone broth fasting
Raw milk diet
Reasons Not to Eat Paleo
Previous posts from the “Why Diets Fail” series:
1. The Real Reason Diets Fail and What You Can Do About It
For your health and safety, please read these important Weight Loss Common Sense Warnings and Disclaimers before commencing a reduced calorie diet.
Picture credit: © 2013 iStockPhoto LLP
Konstantin,
I would like to tell you how much I appreciate what you are doing. Honestly, I am quite shocked that so many people have had such negative things to say, and also that they chose to say them because many of them are so far removed from the point you’re making and who this series is for. I get the impression that many of them are maybe misunderstanding the point of this whole series.
I am not overweight by most people’s definitions, but after I started eating a traditional diet, I gained (within only a couple of months) 20 pounds. I read so much stuff about how you basically can’t gain weight and will likely lose weight eating a traditional diet. False! Then I went low carb, high fat traditional. THAT was supposed to be the epitome of diet perfection and my extra weight would just fall right off. Guess what, it didn’t budge.
Having spent the last 15 years balancing an eating disorder and a hardcore gym routine, I kept feeling so tempted to revert back to my old ways and what I knew would work to lose the weight. I can’t tell you how many times in the past I would pass out at the gym simply because I hadn’t eaten a bite of food in days. I knew that that lifestyle wasn’t healthy and I desperately wanted to keep feeding my body what it needs (I’ve completely “cured” my Bipolar type 1 simply through diet, exercise, and lifestyle), but at the same time I couldn’t accept that I should have to live with this extra weight.
I had almost nearly come to the decision that I was going to reduce my calories while making sure that what I ate was only the most nutritious foods. I had tried everything else and cutting my calories was the only thing left, yet I was terrified that it was the wrong thing to do. Like a miracle, your first article then appeared in my inbox, and I am filled with a deep sense of appreciation and hope. Thank you.
Trudy,
Thank you for “seeing the forest.” Your attitude and struggle with weight loss perfectly captures my ideal audience, and I’ll be honored one day to learn that you finally succeeded in normalizing your weight by following my recommendations.
Thanks for these articles, I find them very fascinating. As a woman who is turning 40 next month, I have had an extra 10 pounds of weight I am trying to lose. I too struggle with the practically of knowing what is 1,200 – 1,400 calories now that I eat real food. I guess the only way to really know is to break down each and every recipe to get the macro nutrients on a place like fitday.com. Is there any other suggestions you have for that? Also, what are your thoughts on intermitten fasting where you give yourself a 6-8 hour window to consume all the calories for the day? I heard that works to help your body shed fat quickly too. Thanks!
Aimee,
You are very welcome. I do realize that this is a mind-bender, but a reduced-calorie diet is the only way to lose the last 5-10 lbs. unless you can turn yourself into an exercise bunny.
About recipes and weight loss: you can’t lose weight by staying in a kitchen and cooking delicious foods. I realize that I am opening up yet another Pandora’s box, but unless you are prepared to cook while wearing a gas mask and blinders, there are no other ways to prevent your body (and imagination) from stimulating hunger and appetite.
So, to be successful in my program during the active weight reduction phase, you’ll need to get out of the kitchen and stay away from cooking shows.
That’s why I wrote in my post that you need to have a supportive family/spouse to be successful at it. It’s even more challenging if you have to cook for kids. And it is outright impossible for chefs unless they have hyper-kinetic personalities along the lines of Jamie Oliver, who is actually getting a bit plump by now.
I agree with some of the above comments that the idea of a 1400 calorie/day diet is not what I would expect to read about on this blog. Listening to Zoe Harcombe’s talk from a London Wise Traditions she shows explicitly how “a calorie isn’t just a calorie” (in fact she references research that shows how this goes against the laws of thermodynamics). I’ve also read both of Julia Ross’ books (Mood Cure, DIet Cure) and Julia says that the World Health Organization says starvation begins at calorie levels below about 2,100; and Ms Ross highly criticizes low-calorie dieting saying it is dangerous to thyroid and other body systems. Byron Richards, in his research on leptin resistance, tells how restricting calories causes metabolism to slow down in order to keep from losing too much weight.
Lee,
There is nothing particularly good, healthy, or wholesome about low-calorie dieting, and I am in complete agreement with Ms. Ross and others on this. However, for people who wish to lose weight naturally (i.e., without drugs, surgery, or extreme workouts), it is the only viable short-term option, and my work is intended to show these people how attain permanent and natural weight loss safely and reliably.
Thank you so much for these posts. I feel as if the rest of them can’t come soon enough. There is so much mixed information about weight loss out there and I am feeling very desperate at the moment. I went on one of those crazy prepackage food diets and was actually able to loose my weight and keep it off for nearly a year after switching to a real food diet. Now, here it comes creeping back and nothing is stoping the increase. While I wait in anticipation, would you mind breifly stating what you suggest be comprised in the 1200 to 1400 calories a day?
Tai,
You are very welcome. I’ll do my best to help you and others master the art of staying at a normal weight.
Sorry, I can’t provide a brief description of a reduced-calorie diet because there are so many ifs, ands, and buts related to this topic. And it isn’t just about what to eat, but also about when, how, and why.
Ah… I will learn patience. That’s for the response. Please keep writing and don’t be discouraged by some of the negative comments and arguments. Thanks again!
Tai, thank you. I am perfectly okay with constructive negative feedback. It helps me to focus on what’s right and alerts me to what concerns readers the most. So it is not only helpful, but also welcome.
And for anything that isn’t constructive, from now on I’ll use my moderation privileges in order to keep this discussion civilized and on topic.
I don’t think any of us are disagreeing with the fact that you need a calorie deficit to lose fat, but drastically reducing caloric intake puts stress on your body, putting it into starvation mode, which is more harmful to one’s health than staying chubby. And I am sure no one here is advocating stomach stapling. My purpose of sharing the above link we to help teach people how to lose weight, love their body and stay health.
Sarah G:
Please follow your beliefs. My posts (and books) are for people who believe otherwise, or have different goals.
Where you hungry all the time eating 1400 calories a day? Is it possible to lose weight without going hungry? I thought too low of calorie intake caused a lowering of the metabolism. Is that false?
Is there a way to lose weight without counting calories but listening to your bodies signals of hunger and fullness? Thanks!
Sarah,
Hunger and appetite are essential survival instincts and are normal to have; to say that I wasn’t hungry or I didn’t have an appetite would be disingenuous. So, yes, I was hungry, but in a normal way, not a ravenous kind of hunger like I see in my cats or in people with unstable blood sugar, gastritis, or other such anomalies. (I am going to address all of these issues in future posts.)
> Does low calorie intake lower the rate of energy metabolism?
Yes, it does. It is just as natural and just as normal as experiencing appetite. Fortunately, there are ways around this issue, and I’ll be addressing them in future posts.
> Is there a way to lose weight without counting calories but listening to your bodies signals of hunger and fullness?
Yes, there are ways, and you can observe them by watching “The Biggest Loser” on NBC. This program has been running for years; practically everyone with weight issues has seen it at least once, yet somehow the obesity epidemic is getting worse and worse.
Konstantin, do you support the weight loss methods and strategies that are shown on ‘The Biggest Loser’?
Beth,
I venture to guess that the majority of people with weight concerns have seen “The Biggest Loser” more than once. If they are still overweight, then it means that the strategies and methods espoused by this program didn’t help them. That’s all that I needed to know.
40 posts only Fridays is too long to wait when needing it all NOW! Post menopause, nothing working and low cortisol. What to do?!
Karey,
Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions to this very complex problem, and even more so for women past menopause.
I know every body is different, with a different set of “issues,” but I find as I explore and learn more about grain free and overall healthier living in a more natural state (as opposed to the chemically-laden existence I was living, it is overwhelming. After six kids, loads of stress from teaching, and now unemployment, my happiness has arisen from learning more about this new life that I never had the time to before. But, there is this weight around my stomach which concerns me dramatically. And I certainly hope to read more from this series about thyroid and how it affects weight loss and gain. I’ve yo-yo’d from hypo- to hyper-thyroid since my fifth child was born. I am not concerned about being “skinny” as our society defines everything, but rather I would like to be and feel “healthy.” As I tell my partner, I don’t want to stand in the pharmacy line at Walmart for the next forty years…
Helen, welcome to the club! You’ve found the right home for your aspirations to remain healthy and drug-free for the next 40 years. Yes, I will absolutely address the role of endocrine health in future posts.
Will you also be addressing the role of leptin and leptin resistance?
I would be really interested to learn more about leptin resistance and how to become leptin sensitive too. Thanks.
We all have a lot of hormones and other substances that regulate hunger, appetite, satiety, digestion, assimilation, and metabolism. Leptin happens to be only one of them, and I don’t have anything of value to add to what has already been written on this subject ad nauseum.
The original thinking was that by regulating leptin (with drugs, of course), we’ll be able to turn the “hunger gene” off and the “satiety gene” on. When this happens, please let me know. Meanwhile, leptin or not, a properly structured weight loss diet and health- and age-appropriate exercise are still the only known ways of attaining weight loss naturally.
I’m confused. Is this a joke? 1400 calorie diets? Isn’t this a WAPF site? I thought nourishment was #1 concern… 1400 calories is starvation… Maybe this is a prequel to a following post where you say “tricked you, you actually need to do weightlifting and eat enough calories and protein and less starchy carbs”. Hmmm…
Rachel,
No, this isn’t a joke. If 1,400 calories is too little for you, feel free to consume 1,600, or 1,800, or 2,000, or 2,200, or what have you.
The only difference will be that you are going to lose less fat (or not at all), and it may take you longer, much longer. That was the whole point behind my post. Besides, I explicitly wrote the following:
“This number [1,400 calories] may or may not apply to you, and I am using it here for illustration only. I will address stage one and stage two diet composition and energy density in future posts.”
So that people know, I think the author edited his response to my previous post. Here is what showed up in my inbox:
“Author: Konstantin Monastyrsky
Comment:
Rachel,
I am confused about your being confused. How do you expect people who need to lose weight naturally to accomplish it? With surgery? LAP-BAND? Liposuction? Drugs?
Sorry, but it isn’t my fault that some people, apparently you too, have been brainwashed by Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Media that they can consume their prepackaged, prescribed, or prerecorded junk with impunity, and still enjoy Kate Moss-like body.
And, yes, this site is affiliated with WAPF, and so am I. That is why Sarah is normal weight, and her children are vibrant and healthy. Or is why my wife at 58 enjoys a body of 25 year old, and I, a former late stage diabetic and a “fatso” is still alive.
So, please, don’t confuse what the WAPF is preaching for healthy people to stay healthy with what is needed for 105+ million Americans to normalize their weight, and get off drugs for hypertension, diabetes, heartburn, ADD/HD, depression, insomnia, and on, and on, and on…
So, no, it is not a joke, and, no, I will not send you weightlifting. Even if I will, I’ll doubt you’ll do it because people who can do it don’t read weight loss articles or make sarcastic comments.”
Wow, you couldn’t be more wrong in just about everything you said about me! I DO lift weights and exercise, I DO eat about 2000 calories a day. I HAVE lost a lot of weight doing this in the past 8 months since I had my baby. I HAVE starved myself in the past along the lines of what you are suggesting and I was definitely NOT healthy that way. I DEFINITELY DO NOT “eat prepackaged, prescribed, or prerecorded junk with impunity”. I am not “brain washed by Big Pharma”, in fact I don’t buy any prepackaged food or junk food. I DO NOT have nor do I want a “Kate Moss body”.
The reason why I would read a weight loss post is because it was sent to my inbox and I am losing post-partum weight, so I don’t really struggle with weight per say, but I, like most women, gained weight while pregnant. I would definitely be overweight if I didn’t eat properly and exercise.
I am so surprised that this blog would have such a demoralizing and rude author. I’m really just in shock.
Rachel,
Yes, I have edited my prior response because it was written in a somewhat emotional haste. That said, if you decided to repost my original post, I stand behind each and every word I said there.
I also strongly suggest that you read “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by the late Dr. Stephen Covey, a seminal book that I live by and recommend to all people that I come across, because these seven habits will not only make them wealthier, happier, and more successful, but also healthier.
Dr. Covey makes an excellent point in that book that nobody can “make you anything,” unless you allow it (quotes are mine, not his). So if my posts or responses to your comments are “demoralizing” to you, then “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31), and if you don’t, then don’t suddenly feign indignation and righteousness over someone not expressing an immediate love, affection, and tolerance toward your point of view, however reasonable or unreasonable it may be.
And, by the way, your negative emotions are poisonous to your baby’s physical and emotional health (especially while still nursing), predispose her to obesity, and may also cause lifelong personal and professional difficulties because children tend to mirror the personalities of their parents.
This particular phenomenon was well captured in the folk wisdom of “If you want to know how your wife will look [act] like in the future, go visit your mother-in-law.” (This adage, incidentally, applies to men and fathers-in-law just as much, if not more.)
I am sure this response will elicit some more hate, but that comes with the territory, and I am a big enough boy (and a good student of Dr. Covey) to handle it. Besides, my beloved cats (cats, not kids, this isn’t a typo) are already 14, perfectly normal weight and well adjusted, so I have nobody to ruin but myself, and I am not going to allow that.
I completely agree. He is absolutely belligerent with so many accusatory and plain mean responses.
Melissa,
Life taught me one very important character trait: telling the truth always trumps telling people what they want to hear.
If you don’t like hearing the truth, please, don’t turn it into my problem.
I think he’s spot on. If someone doesn’t mind being rude in their posts, why should that person get offended if he’s rude right back? I, for one, appreciate his honestly and straightforwardness.
Take Rachel’s unsolicited comment, for example. Her comment was very rude and really pointless because it’s as if she didn’t even read the article. She comments as if he’s trying to tell her in order to lose weight she should eat 1400 calories a day. He clearly said that 1400 was just to illustrate his point and to adjust up or down as needed.
@Rachel You go on to comment that you eat 2000 calories a day and exercise and have lost weight. That’s great! And precisely what he is saying to do. I bet if you ate 2500 calories you wouldn’t still lose weight. There’s plenty of people out there who GAIN weight on a 2000 calorie diet. Does 1400 sound unreasonable for them? The point as that he clearly says that 1400 is to illustrate his point and to adjust up or down.
Seconded Trudy, I agree with you!
I’m really surprised at what I can only describe as hate on this thread. Quite disappointing and not what I expected at all. Each to their own though and I’m just going to ignore the rest of the comments here, get on with my day and look forward to his next post 🙂
Exactly. Nourishment and health is SUPPOSED to be the number one concern here.
And considering there is scarce medical research and experiential evidence that shows us where losing weight = better health, and that being “over” weight automatically = bad health, this is just all around not in good faith. In addition, it’s actually harmful to suggest this, especially since we (and medical practitioners) often overlook so many people’s actual health issues by brushing it off with “just lose weight.”
I’ll spend my time reading health-oriented sites instead, as this one has clearly decided not to be interested in our HEALTH but instead our weight.
Melissa,
No dispute there. Nourishment and health are a number one concern here.
Konstantin, while the above comment was undoubtedly rude, I also had a question mark in my head about the calorie level. I recall Sally Fallon always saying that 2,500 calories of quality food is required to simply sustain the systems of the body. I’ve always had success with weight loss on lower calorie plans but not permanent. Now that our family is on a traditional diet, I have been trying not to “starve” myself to make sure my cells get what they need. Is your opinion that once the weight goal is attained that the calories should go back up to that level? Even in her “Eat Fat, Lose Fat” book, the calorie recommendations are quite high. My reality has been, “Eat Fat, Stay the Same.”
Joanna,
Sally’s recommendations apply to healthy normal-weight people with active lifestyles. If you tell Sally that you are gaining weight on a 2,500-calorie diet, she’ll respond along these lines:
“Joanna, please adjust your calorie intake from all food groups [i.e., fats, proteins, and carbohydrates] to match your age, gender, build, ethnicity, physical activity, and other health and lifestyle factors that are different from individual to individual.”
And Sally’s book isn’t recommending to pig out on fat either, but eating a traditional diet with the right kind of fats. I recommend the same.
Also, note another very important point: the fat under your skin happens to be the right kind. So when you commence a reduced-calorie diet in order to drop your body’s fat down to 22%-25% — a normal range for healthy women — you aren’t going to harm yourself in any way because your body will reuse these fats for energy and structural metabolism.
But you still must consume essential fats in order to contain your appetite, facilitate proper gallbladder function, assimilate fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, K, and related minerals, and to address a number of other health-critical functions that are so well described in Sarah’s new book, “Get Your Fats Straight”. I highly recommend it to everyone, and even more to people who are struggling with weight issues.
Joanna, how was my comment rude? I was honestly confused. If you look at what I posted next, you’ll see how incredibly rude and arrogant his response to me was. I think it was edited because it’s been changed on the site.
Well said Trudy and Diana.
This is written from a male perspective. Women lose weight differently than men, and male experts on weight loss, trainers, etc. (in my experience) tend to be clueless about helping women lose weight.
Catz,
This is news to me… You mean to say that male doctors should never treat women, and that adults should never treat children, and that young doctors should stay away from old patients, and that old doctors should stay away from young patients.
Well, if you think this way about men in general, and this man in particular, feel free to ignore this and future posts.
Catz, ignore Konstantin. It’s a straw-argument (I mean really, as if you are saying only children doctors should treat children…come on.) You say that IN YOUR EXPERIENCE men aren’t listening and are often clueless. He’s not listening either, proving your point rather well.
Besides, no one can tell you that your experience isn’t what it is. YOU are the only person who knows your experiences. Even so, the evidence available says you are right. Male experts aren’t considering women’s bodies as often as they should. Women are most often considered other and men the default body.
Konstantin, do not tell a woman that her experience is false and then make straw arguments. It’s not helpful. And yes, I am ignoring future posts. I wish Sarah wouldn’t have allowed 40+ more posts on this to be forthcoming on her site.
Melissa,
I can assure you that I am married to a woman, and I know a thing or two about our differences. And, trust me, men, including this one, love, respect, and admire female bodies of all shapes and sizes.
And, by the way, I am just a messenger. Why so much hatred?
This is now gaslighting, please stop. Hatred? I think not. You are ignoring a simple request to not tell women how they feel or should feel or what they experienced.
Being married to a woman has no relevance at all. Neither did anyone say anything about all men. Listening is key, and you are failing. And being rude in the process. Please stop.
Crazy alert.
blanket statement.